Anfauglir, do you support the right of Muslim clerics to be able to publicly call for peopls' deaths and such? That's basically akin to what this ad is doing.

Very good question. As Dante points out this may well be covered under "accessory to murder" laws, which I suspect would certainly NOT cover the subway posters. When a man specifically says to another man, "go and kill this person" then they can and should be arrested under those laws, not freedom of speech laws.

It depends what is actually said. If that person was saying "I don't think XXX should live", and someone heard that and went off and killed them, would the person who spoke still be guilty? I'm thinking somewhat of "who will rid me of this turbulent priest" here....specifically, of Brian Blessed in Blackadder. But I digress.

Point being: if you tell someone specifically to kill someone else, there are laws already around that cover that. If that is not enough, then we are asking for a law that will take action against someone for expressing an opinion, however odious that opinion may be to us. As 3Sigma points out, that is exactly what some Islamic leaders want to move towards with blasphemy laws. How much easier if they can point to existing legislation that says "these laws are already enforced, why not ours?"

So bottom line answer to your question? Yes, much as I hate it, I do. Then arrest them for conspiracy to murder, or arrest them for being an accomplice to murder.....but not for speaking their minds - no matter how small or twisted those minds may be.

Israel is, according to this, at war. At war with the savages. And this is not a metaphorical war, like the "war on drugs" - military and para-military forces are killing each other. To support one side is to support the killing of the other.

I'm not sure that I agree completely with your assessment. If I say that I support our (American) troops, that does not necessarily mean that I am calling for anyone to go out and kill Afghanis or Iraquis, or any one else. I can support them, as well as the cause, without wishing or calling for bodily harm on anyone. We can support their efforts, and their sacrifices, without supporting the bloodshed.

So, should every American with a "support our troops" bumper sticker be subject to your wrath? I think not.

Again, dont misunderstand, I think the advert, as well as the "war", is about as wrong as one could be. However, I dont think the propoganda on the public transport is, or should be, illegal.

If the ad were to say "kill all the hajis" or some such, you'd have a leg to stand on. As it's currently written, I dont think you do.

And they have been extraordinarily successful with their disinformation campaign. I'm disheartened by the number of people in both the general public, and even here, in a community of supposed critical thinkers, who have embraced their propaganda.

Their success has made them bolder. The NYC subway ad is leap in this targeted campaign to paint both the Palestinians, and the huge percentage of humanity who ascribe to Islam, as "savage" and 'uncivilized" and somehow less human than the rest of us.

I have no idea how much influence they have had in the recent overload of media coverage in which Muslim protests are presented out of the context of the larger issues.

And as Azdgari pointed out, the Palestinian situation is not a metaphorical war. It is a real war with real oppression and real deaths that are shockingly absent within the mainstream media. It is financed, in part, by your tax dollars, if you live in the US. And of course, from wealthy pro-Israeli donors.

Also absent from the media are the hate crimes that Muslim Americans endure with increasing frequency. It is not until a massacre in an American Sikh temple (which was apparently mistaken for a Muslim mosque) that we even pay attention to the vulnerability of the marginalized Muslims living within our own borders. But since the ignorant attacker did not even realize he was targeting a community completely unrelated to the Muslim community, the focus has been on the innocent victims, not on the real violence that Muslims face on a regular basis.

I'm not sure that I agree completely with your assessment. If I say that I support our (American) troops, that does not necessarily mean that I am calling for anyone to go out and kill Afghanis or Iraquis, or any one else. I can support them, as well as the cause, without wishing or calling for bodily harm on anyone. We can support their efforts, and their sacrifices, without supporting the bloodshed.

You were right, up until the bolded part. Then you were wrong. You can support the troops in some senses without supporting their actions, but once you support the war effort, you are supporting the killing. That's what a war effort is.

I'm not sure that I agree completely with your assessment. If I say that I support our (American) troops, that does not necessarily mean that I am calling for anyone to go out and kill Afghanis or Iraquis, or any one else. I can support them, as well as the cause, without wishing or calling for bodily harm on anyone. We can support their efforts, and their sacrifices, without supporting the bloodshed.

You were right, up until the bolded part. Then you were wrong. You can support the troops in some senses without supporting their actions, but once you support the war effort, you are supporting the killing. That's what a war effort is.

Is it? Again, I disagree. If it were only about killing, the entire mid-east would be a glass parking lot. Since it isn't (yet), I can't conclude that either war, ours or Israel's, is only about killing people. But, that's not what this conversation is about.

So, should every American with a "support our troops" bumper sticker be subject to your wrath? I think not.

I wasn't aware that I was subjecting anyone to any wrath. Replace "support our troops" with "support our war against the savage Iraqis/Afghanis" - does the same judgment apply?

Yes, it does. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but it sure doesn't make it wrong in a society where free speech is valued. The veracity of the argument is the determining factor of right and/or wrong.

So, should every American with a "support our troops" bumper sticker be subject to your wrath? I think not.

I am personally opposed to the current military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and very opposed to the drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and various other regions. I blame the policy makers who have promoted these wars.

I wholeheartedly support the troops. The young people who joined the military, mostly for lack of educational and employment opportunities, have lost their youth in these wars. Many of them have come home physically and emotionally damaged. And while they were off fighting a war to protect corporate interests, banks were foreclosing on their homes. Many come home and don't have access to the medical support that they need. This is outrageous. I have fought for, and will continue to fight for the individuals and families whose lives were torn apart as they were fighting in the war.

If the ad were to say "kill all the hajis" or some such, you'd have a leg to stand on. As it's currently written, I dont think you do.

Well, if the lawyers for the "kill all the hajis" sign made the same argument that the "savages" folks made, the ruling would have been the same. The MTA's existing policy provides protection for specifically named groups, but not all groups. Therefore, it violates the first amendment. Once the MTA adjusts the wording, as per the judge's recommendations, then all groups will be protected and both examples will be a violation of MTA policy.

Can I ask another question, just for clarification of your views? Should "God Hates Fags" signs be illegal in all instances?

I have mixed feelings about the court's decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church protests. But a protest can spark a counter protest, as is often the case with the God Hates Fags folks.

A sign in a public space, like a subway, a public school, or a courthouse, that says "God Hates Fags" would, in my opinion, be just as unacceptable as the sign in the op.

These "savages" people are, by the way, the same folks who manufactured the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. They are very skilled at manipulating public opinion.

But my response to their protests was to attend the counter protests. Probably most New Yorkers live within walking distance of a mosque. I can walk to three in less than 15 minutes from my front door. And as my neighborhood goes forward with plans to build a larger mosque, the primary concerns have come from the historic landmarking folks who had to approve the copula to ensure that it conforms to architectural guidelines associated with all new construction in the neighborhood. And the muslim community is delighted to enjoy the support of various local politicians, including our openly gay protestant city council member, as well as some prominent Rabbis and Ministers.

On a side note, I'm delighted that Anonymous hacked the God Hates Fags website.

Is it? Again, I disagree. If it were only about killing, the entire mid-east would be a glass parking lot. Since it isn't (yet), I can't conclude that either war, ours or Israel's, is only about killing people. But, that's not what this conversation is about.

I never said that killing was the end purpose of the war. Just that killing is what a war is. With no killing, one would be hard-pressed to call a conflict a "war". And in this case, there's plenty of killing. Killing is the tool that warfare uses to achieve its aims. Total annihilation may not be on the table, but that, again, is a difference in end goals. Are you suggesting that the amount of killing being advocated is relevant to whether the ad or announcement is inciting people to kill each other?

Yes, it does. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but it sure doesn't make it wrong in a society where free speech is valued. The veracity of the argument is the determining factor of right and/or wrong.

Veracity of which statement? You are interchangeably using "right/wrong" as moral judgments and as factual judgments here. My point was that "support our troops" does not entail our troops killing anyone at all. I support the Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and for that reason I want our government to bring them home. If I supported them in their work, then I would support the requirements of that work as well - which entails killing and risking being killed. Maybe that support would be justified. But it's still support for killing.

Can I ask another question, just for clarification of your views? Should "God Hates Fags" signs be illegal in all instances?

Do they call for peoples' deaths? Again, it was the combination of statements. If the sign simply said that the Palestinians were savages, then that would be offensive but wouldn't be an incitement to murder. But it called for support for the war against those savages. If the signs you're talking about said "God Hates Fags - Leviticus 20:13" then that would be different:

Quote from: Leviticus 20:13

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

If it just mentioned a "war" against homosexuality, then there would be some wiggle room in the interpretation, as there's no armed conflict between groups of hetero- and homo-sexuals that might reasonably be called a "war" in the literal sense. That is different from the situation in Palestine.

Perhaps you missed my last post to you on the previous page. Could you try to answer those questions, please?

Sigma-

I am genuinely flattered by the fact that you are so actively seeking my opinion on such a wide range of subjects. Again, I would be even more flattered if you appeared to be reading my posts and paying attention to what I have already written.

But I will indulge you on this topic one last time.

Let me start out by saying that, as a US citizen, I feel entitled to have strong opinions about US policies. I do not, however, feel entitled to proscribe policy to the rest of the world’s autonomous nations. And quite frankly, I’m embarrassed when my nation imposes its will on independent, autonomous nations, and I’m outraged when we do so with my tax dollars.

As someone who has worked with refugees from all over the world, I have some strong opinions about how the laws and policies in other nations impact upon their citizens, and I have no trouble articulating my observations and concerns about laws and policies. Bur only very rarely do I cross that line and suggest policy solutions to problems indigenous to other nations.[1]

Second, what is your proposed solution to the Middle East situation? Should Israel return land to the Palestinians? How much land? Will the Muslim nations surrounding Israel be satisfied with anything less than the elimination of Israel?

Again, I am flattered that you want to hear my proposed solutions to the very issues the global community has failed to resolve. Furthermore, although I have worked with refugees and displaced people from every part of the world, (and even refugees from opposing sides of the same war), Latin America, not the Middle East, is my area of expertise.

And again, I feel that I have already expressed my opinions on this topic, right here in this thread.

I no more support the removal of Jews from Israel than I support the removal of people of European ancestry from the Americas. It is not realistic. Even just a couple of generations into to occupation, this land is home to those who were born there, and those who have sought refuge there, and those who have invested time and resources into creating communities and infrastructure.

I would be inclined to say that perhaps the Israelis and the Palestinians who are portrayed working together in this video are in a better position than I am to work towards a solution.

I haven’t seen this documentary yet, but I’ve heard about it. As Palestinians are being evicted from a Jerusalem neighborhood to make way for Jewish settlers, members of the local Jewish community organize protests against the evictions. Here is the trailer.

I think a lot of folks don’t realize how divided Israelis are on the topic of the settlements. Israel is a home to many refugees. But as folks arrive in Israel to escape oppression, they find themselves displacing the people whose ancestors lived there for thousands of years.

Respectfully, I'm getting tired of being asked to answer questions I have already addressed. And I am also getting tired of being asked to draft imaginary policies or laws. I may have an optimistic streak, but I am really a pragmatist. And I spend too much time dealing with real policies and laws to find the creation of imaginary ones (that I could have no impact on) to be an entertaining exercise.

Some exceptions include anti apartheid work many many years ago. I have also demonstrated my support for many of Evo Morales anti-corporate policies. And I have publically advocated for the prosecution of Otto Perez Molina on charges of genocide and torture. But I have an unusually intimate relationship with many of his victims, which is why I feel entitled to have such strong opinions about this particular foreign head of state. And perhaps, as a citizen of a nation with a history of imperialism, and as someone of Jewish descent who works with many Muslim refugees from various warzones, I have extraordinarily strong opinions about the role of Israel

Well well. I have to admit, the formerly jewish part of me was surprised by the ham-handedness of this poster. It may be a stereotype, but I think Israel is cleverer than that (though with Bibi in charge, I'm always adjusting this impression)

Now to what's being projected from this subway poster, I'll repeat my quote, but since no one seemed to note my last post, I'll bold the main parts...

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”It concludes with the words, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” wedged between two Stars of David

Apparently we can dispense with the Stars of David. False flag.

Savage: Who are the savages? Those that conduct jihad. What does the poster call on people to do? Support Israel and Defeat Jihad. You who are so upset with this subway poster are projecting all sorts of other things into this... Settlement policy, Palestine, Israeli atrocities... The damned poster doesn't mention nor attempt to justify ANY of those things. These are YOUR projections. It does heavily imply that Israel stands against jihad, and they may well do, and you may be justified calling bull-shit on that, but the thing that really seems to be bothering you is the use of the word 'savages'

Well here's my f-ing opinion on that: Anyone who thinks that their cause justifies the taking of lives that are NOT directly involved in opposition to that cause are butchers and murderers who care little for the lives of innocent people. (Savages? my only problem with the word is that it just isn't the right one... I used two that are). There have been terrorist attacks throughout the world that were NOT aimed against legitimate targets (which would be Israeli soldiers, and those directly supporting Israeli policies) To stand against such behavior, such anti-civilization war, is a very good suggestion. To hell with the people who justify the WTC atrocity (and other attacks further from my home) against innocent non-combatants. There is NO JUSTIFICATION.

3sigma

I am genuinely flattered by the fact that you are so actively seeking my opinion on such a wide range of subjects. Again, I would be even more flattered if you appeared to be reading my posts and paying attention to what I have already written.

If you look at the questions I asked and those posts you’ve quoted, you should be able to see that those posts don’t address the actual questions I asked at all. Never mind though, I can see it is pointless to continue asking.

Quote

In terms of your other specific examples, I find your questions really tedious, and I do not feel inclined to provide commentary on the multiple examples of people of Muslim descent behaving badly.

It is curious that you can be “genuinely flattered” by my questions yet simultaneously find them “really tedious”. I don’t feel flattered by this response, though. I find it rather evasive.

Well well. I have to admit, the formerly jewish part of me was surprised by the ham-handedness of this poster. It may be a stereotype, but I think Israel is cleverer than that (though with Bibi in charge, I'm always adjusting this impression)

Now to what's being projected from this subway poster, I'll repeat my quote, but since no one seemed to note my last post, I'll bold the main parts...

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”It concludes with the words, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” wedged between two Stars of David

Apparently we can dispense with the Stars of David. False flag.

Savage: Who are the savages? Those that conduct jihad. What does the poster call on people to do? Support Israel and Defeat Jihad. You who are so upset with this subway poster are projecting all sorts of other things into this... Settlement policy, Palestine, Israeli atrocities... The damned poster doesn't mention nor attempt to justify ANY of those things. These are YOUR projections. It does heavily imply that Israel stands against jihad, and they may well do, and you may be justified calling bull-shit on that, but the thing that really seems to be bothering you is the use of the word 'savages'

Well here's my f-ing opinion on that: Anyone who thinks that their cause justifies the taking of lives that are NOT directly involved in opposition to that cause are butchers and murderers who care little for the lives of innocent people. (Savages? my only problem with the word is that it just isn't the right one... I used two that are). There have been terrorist attacks throughout the world that were NOT aimed against legitimate targets (which would be Israeli soldiers, and those directly supporting Israeli policies) To stand against such behavior, such anti-civilization war, is a very good suggestion. To hell with the people who justify the WTC atrocity (and other attacks further from my home) against innocent non-combatants. There is NO JUSTIFICATION.

Americans are 200 years ahead of the Israeli's in the getting rid of the "savages" department...and they did it against a similarly equipped enemy. Americans did a much more thorough job in getting rid of their terrorists,and they used every weapon available,including germ warfare.

If after WW2 Governments of the world decided Israel would be.....say New York.....I am sure you would have people "fighting" for the freedom of New York as Israeli's bulldozed down their neighborhoods.

What would they call New Yorker's, freedom fighters or terrorists?

« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 04:13:46 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Americans are 200 years ahead of the Israeli's in the getting rid of the "savages" department...and they did it against a similarly equipped enemy. Americans did a much more thorough job in getting rid of their terrorists,and they used every weapon available,including germ warfare.

If after WW2 Governments of the world decided Israel would be.....say New York.....I am sure you would have people "fighting" for the freedom of New York as Israeli's bulldozed down their neighborhoods.

And do you think Americans (Brits or the Spanish) would have been attacking citizens in other countries in their holy war? Would Amercians be blowing up citizens of other nations? Do you think that civilized people would kill anyone they could get in their sights NOT in theatre... not in the war zone... not in the disputed area... not the people who are supposed to be intended targets? These aren't strategic targets. They are not attacking convoys, shipments or even pols who are responsible for aggressive policy... they are attacking innocent people. They are using terror.

The term freedom fighter only works when the war they're fighting is directed against their oppressors. Bin Laden, who called for this jihad as well as 11 of the hijackers that committed mass murder in NYC were Saudi. Tell me, what are the Saudis doing conducting this holy war?

The jihad is not about Israel. Israel is the excuse. Why all the bellicosity from the Iranians? They aren't even arabs. The thing that radical muslims have in common, whether they are from Pakistan, the Philippines, Iran or Saudi Arabia is a hatred of western civilization. They are dead set against the modern world. They, like the funides in the US want to turn the clock back to a 'better' time, only these radical Muslims want to turn it back centuries rather than decades and are willing to conduct terror to do so. Their intention is to install Islamic theocracies to ensure that happens. They are not anit-colonial, nor even anti-jewish. They are civilization.

Palestine has served their cause for over 50 years. Palestinian refugee camps in arab countries? If those countries and their patrons (principally Saudi Arabia) cared at all for these displaced people, they would have offered them settlement and compensation, but it served their ends to have the Palestinian people in a perpetual state of exile.

And once again, the damned subway poster isn't about Palestine. It's about Jihad. Now that one I get. That's moving the goal posts.

Any American who supports Israel has the right to establish a land that "God gave them" should really think......because if people can just take back land that was "stolen" from them and because they "say so". I as a descendant of the original owners of the land will be first in line to take back what is mine. Care to "give back" your land to any of my relatives?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Any American who supports Israel has the right to establish a land that "God gave them" should really think......because if people can just take back land that was "stolen" from them and because they "say so". I as a descendant of the original owners of the land will be first in line to take back what is mine. Care to "give back" your land to any of my relatives?

Well, according to Mitt, that is the jews too. Do you wear a Yarmulke?

Any American who supports Israel has the right to establish a land that "God gave them" should really think.....

Anyone who uses "God" in whatever situation needs to think. No god.

Quote

because if people can just take back land that was "stolen" from them and because they "say so". I as a descendant of the original owners of the land will be first in line to take back what is mine. Care to "give back" your land to any of my relatives?

Nope.

Why has no one taken up the cause for dispossessed Palestinian property owners, in an attempt to redress their legitimate claims? The big answer is that the Palestinians have been used as pawns by their Arab benefactors. The Syrians, the Saudis, and the Iranians don't want to make sure homeowners are compensated for the loss of their property (many fled, abandoning their homes and chose refugee camps instead). They want the Palestinians as a people kept in a state of flux, so they can keep demanding that Israel be dissolved.

However, you point out one of the major problems with any questions regarding 'peoples' and lost land.

The only argument that could be used against 'me' and 'my land' would be that 'your' ancestors once held the land. It is an argument based on ancestral claims. The only argument more specious than this is the theological argument. It replaces what some imaginary god supposedly desires, with a grievance of long-dead persons. Admittedly, slightly more legitimate, but fraught with just as many problems.

Iraq used this excuse to invade and occupy Kuwait. The Argentine junta used it to invade and occupy the Falkland Islands. China uses it in their continuing occupation of Tibet. Germany had used it against Poland. It goes on and on. There is no easy way to settle such disputes because they use ancestral claims balanced against actual living people who (in some cases) have lived in the disputed area for generations. There is no easy answer, and in almost all cases with which I'm aware, the only way such claims are addressed is through bloodshed, with the winner settling the claim.

Let's take the cases of the Falklands and Kuwait. The Kuwaitis don't consider themselves Iraqi, and the inhabitants of the Falklands were British, not Argentinian. Forget the nations' claims: The people there did not want to be 'returned' to what they saw as foreign rule. Both arguments were settled by force. Kuwait was denied to Iraq, and the Falklands still remain free of Argentina.

Now on to Israel and Palestine

Dispossessing people of their land is generally frowned on in the 21st century. Ancestral claims and the even more tenuous religious claims are generally rejected in favor of the claims of current inhabitants to the lands in question. In light of this, the question of ownership of Israeli land (pre '67) is over. It was given to them and they kept it by force. Israel was founded, internationally recognized by the world's powers, admitted into the UN etc. Since this occurred over 60 years ago, most if not all of the original title holders to the lands are dead. If Palestinian sympathizers cared for the actual dispossessed owners, they should push for some sort of compensation for those remaining. Otherwise, this is a done deal. The children of the original owners have no rights to the land, and whatever compensation there is, should be adjudicated.

However, Israel seized land in 1967 in a preemptive war on the eve of a massive attack that was marshaled at their borders. They kept that land too long, and even now, are trying to hold onto 'Judea and Samaria' with the insidious Settlement Policy. This tactic should be roundly denounced. In fact, it has hurt American-Israeli relations, and in the long run, is dangerous for Israel and undermines the formation of a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank.

Why has no one taken up the cause for dispossessed Palestinian property owners, in an attempt to redress their legitimate claims?

Say what?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Oslo Accords? The Madrid Conference? Even that Camp David Summit. The Arab Peace Initiative? Road Map to Peace?

There are even significant efforts within Israel to create reforms. A significant percentage of both Israeli Jews and Palestinians are opposed to the settlements and the semi-apartheid system.[1] A few years back at a conference, I was really surprised and delighted to see an Israeli/Bedouin organization dedicated to addressing the issues facing the Bedouin population, and presenters at the conference included both Israeli Jews and Bedouins who have worked together to address the unique issues of the depletion of available land for a traditionally nomadic people.

There have been numerous efforts, and there continue to be many thousands of people, both within Israel and among members of international communities who are dedicated to attempting to find a resolution to this huge and complex issue.

The big answer is that the Palestinians have been used as pawns by their Arab benefactors. The Syrians, the Saudis, and the Iranians don't want to make sure homeowners are compensated for the loss of their property (many fled, abandoning their homes and chose refugee camps instead). They want the Palestinians as a people kept in a state of flux, so they can keep demanding that Israel be dissolved.

Respectfully, this is the silliest conspiracy theory stuff that I have heard yet on the topic. Are there extraterrestrials who have a vested interest as well?

....and the inhabitants of the Falklands were British, not Argentinian. Forget the nations' claims: The people there did not want to be 'returned' to what they saw as foreign rule. Both arguments were settled by force. Kuwait was denied to Iraq, and the Falklands still remain free of Argentina.

Wow. Don't even know what to do with that one. The vast majority of the inhabitants of Argentina are of European descent. You want to argue for the right of the British Crown to hold on to little tiny territories on the other side of the planet, as dusty trophies of their long-ago imperialist ventures. That is a really different discussion.

so are you saying in the 21st century and beyond man will have no more wars where borders and territories are claimed? You missed my point,Israel said they had a right to land that "God" gave them,which is why Israel was established where it was established.

Now why did the powers that be agree?,they are mostly religious nuts who think this will bring Jesus back? Why does the nation of Israel need to exist at all? If Israel can use the argument that the land was stolen from them and they deserve it back.......and it is GIVEN to them,why wont that argument work for us aboriginals?

Your statement that we can't do that just because, doesn't hold up.....if Israel can establish ownership after 2000 years of it being stolen from them,whats to stop us,after all,your ancestors stole our land only 500 years ago.

In your opinion why is it OK for Israel and not the other nations you mentioned who have ancestral ownership of the land to rightfully either be compensated or returned to the lands? Why do you state Israel has had the land too long to give it back? what kind of a statement is that or is it a justification to never give any stolen land back ever?

« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 09:58:36 AM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

However, you point out one of the major problems with any questions regarding 'peoples' and lost land.

I have some friends who are of Italian descent. They claim that Jupiter promised Rome to them. They have been without their own country for centuries. They hope to move to Rome, kick out the Italians who have taken over and start a true Roman scoiety based on the pagan religion actual Romans practiced.

They figure they need about $300 Billion to get started and an additional $30 billion every year to hold the land until the EU eventually accepts them. They are looking to the US to finance it. They know the rest of the EU will hate them and the US, but they are going to spend millions on lobbying congressional candidates to sell it to the American people. Until then, they are going to blow up Italian police stations and hotels around Rome.

The situation in Israel/Palestine is all kinds of messed up. There are Palestinians who want the whole of the land. There are Israelis who want the whole of the land. The problem is that both sides are a vocal minority who keep the issue bubbling, interfering with any effort to accomplish anything, that allows the hard-liners to push their own agendas rather than what would be best for the people in general. That's a tried and true method for radicals to seize power - it's happened elsewhere, and is happening even in this country.

Israel as a whole doesn't benefit from settlements that encroach on Palestinian land. Palestinians as a whole don't benefit from terrorist and militaristic attacks on Israelis. I wish there were a way to take the hard-liners and the nuts and shut them in a room together. Barring that, the best way to solve it is for the moderates on both sides to take charge of the process. As long as they leave it to the extremists, there'll be no solution.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

The arab-israeli situation is a quagmire, for them of course, but also for anyone who attempts to discuss or debate it. You generally declined to respond to my points regarding the subway poster, and instead have posed red-herring questions about resettlement or perhaps, right of return. I attempted to answer, which I should have avoided.

You are arguing from emotion, not reason. I don't really care about the plight of Peoples: Yours, mine or anyone else's. I care about the plight of individuals. I am against Peoples getting land based on god's say-so, as well as based on ancient or outdated claims. Stacked up against current landholders, deeds, and sums paid, I don't give a rat's ass about anyone's spurious claims based on history, religion or nebulous rights. So for me, human rights and the rule of law will always trump all other so-called rights and claims.

@ QuesiI could answer some of your points, get too snarky about you seemingly intentionally misunderstanding my comments about individual compensation, or my crazy conspiracy theory, but again, I would only be engaging in a back and forth that will go on far too long.

If you wish to understand what I've tried to say, please realize that I try to be pragmatic. The right and wrong of Israel for instance is immaterial to me. It exists. It will not disappear except by force. The UN cannot un-mandate it, and if they could, it would be ignored. The jews will not relinquish it.

The situation in Israel/Palestine is all kinds of messed up. There are Palestinians who want the whole of the land. There are Israelis who want the whole of the land. The problem is that both sides are a vocal minority who keep the issue bubbling, interfering with any effort to accomplish anything, that allows the hard-liners to push their own agendas rather than what would be best for the people in general. That's a tried and true method for radicals to seize power - it's happened elsewhere, and is happening even in this country.

Israel as a whole doesn't benefit from settlements that encroach on Palestinian land. Palestinians as a whole don't benefit from terrorist and militaristic attacks on Israelis. I wish there were a way to take the hard-liners and the nuts and shut them in a room together. Barring that, the best way to solve it is for the moderates on both sides to take charge of the process. As long as they leave it to the extremists, there'll be no solution.